Re: [AD] more patches

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives ]


Michael Bukin <M.A.Bukin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> http://www.inp.nsk.su/~bukinm/allegro/au031.gz

Damn, and I'd just finished uploading a WIP when I saw this email :-)

> These are mostly fixes for X-windows version (performance and features) 
> and some things useful for other ports.  Fix for cmplog.pl to compare 
> files with CRLF and LF only, fixed '--srcdir' option of configure script 
> (but I used '--disable-linux' to test it, and forgot to test it without 
> '--srcdir' option), removed /sbin from install-info, modified 
> BYTES_PER_PIXEL.

Great stuff. Two things I'm not entirely sure about, though:

- is it safe to assume that sbin will always be pathed, so that install-info 
will work? I say this because it isn't pathed on my system (even as root), 
but I'm not sure whether it was this way by default, or whether I screwed 
something up while editing rc files :-)

- this more portable version of BYTES_PER_PIXEL() will be marginally slower 
than the old implementation, and this macro is used in a lot of places. 
Since these changes are only relevant for machines where sizeof(short) != 2 
or sizeof(long) != 4, would you have any objection to me only using your new 
version when ALLEGRO_I386 is not defined?

The X code is working brilliantly for me, btw: I haven't seen any problems 
at all yet.

> I did not include configure script in this patch, because my version of 
> autoconf is old.

Don't worry, I'm in the habit of rerunning autoconf after applying any 
patches, just to be safe. Since it is generated from a couple of different 
input files, patches tend to get rejected whenever they do try to change it.


--
Shawn Hargreaves - shawn@xxxxxxxxxx - http://www.talula.demon.co.uk/
"A binary is barely software: it's more like hardware on a floppy disk."



Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/